GM FastLane Blog responds to NY Times: Saturn still viable
We don't get it. Saturn has done an amazing job transmogrifying itself into a productive division for The General, and people are wistful for the Saturn of yore? In internet parlance, WTF? Three years ago, it would have been apt to predict that Saturn would be nearly done circling the drain by now and well on its way to the same fate as Oldsmobile. What has in fact happened has been an impressive brand renaissance, invigorated by GM's smart utilization of its global operations. Jerry Garrett opined in the September 5th Wheels section of the New York Times that GM's realignment of Saturn amounts to quietly smothering the brand with a pillow and then swiping its identity. Saturn's communications director Kyle Johnson shot back a reply on the GM FastLane blog, and it all makes for fascinating reading.
We'd like to point out that global asset and platform sharing has been going on for decades at GM. It's really no big thing that Saturn is selling Opels. Heck, the Chevette was an Isuzu Gemini, and who can forget the final Pontiac LeMans? Platform sharing has been going on for a very long time at all of the big three, we're not sure why Saturn's excercise of the practice is such news to Jerry Garrett. Kyle Johnson delivers a pretty good dope-slap of a reply, too. It's always entertaining when the fur flies on the interweb.
[Source: GM Fastlane]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
J.Crew 11:43AM (9/07/2007)
Yeah, the NYT hates GM. Pretty simple. They could have written a great peice on how GM has tunred Saturn around, but instead they focus on the old plastic cars like they were some sort of legendary product that the big bad corporatation killed off for being different. Saturn did not sell enough to be profitable so GM had to change it up. Smart by every business measure. Now they are on fire with the Car of the Year (No Saturn has ever done that!), and more coming.
Reply
Brill 12:26PM (9/07/2007)
+1 on that
Stuart 1:20PM (9/07/2007)
They havn't actually turned them around. If they had done they would need to design their own cars rather then just sell german cars with American badging. Which bring me to the question "Why the Saturn name isn't drop in favour of the Opel name?". Considering it actually a german badge im sure they should easily be able to charge a premium and help push the brand more upmarket into the volkswagen territory.
Guenther 11:09AM (9/08/2007)
Stewy- only 2 of the 5 models are actually Opels. The new Vue is a global vehicle, sold just the same as a Vauxhall and a Holden. Why waste a huge pile of cash to redesign something that sells well?
Tool 11:45AM (9/07/2007)
Saturn needed to reinvent itself because the original idea wasn't working. Plus, GM needed to leverage its global capabilities. What better place than Saturn, with its top-notch channel?
I think the new positioning is terrific and the current lineup spot-on.
Reply
blogged to death 2:12PM (9/07/2007)
The original idea was working. It was the fact that GM would only have full model changes every 6-7 years with little updates making the cars stale and flat. Then GM sent several rebadged GM's over to fill in the gaps. They even had to source a Honda V6 engine for their Vue compact SUV in order to have a world class import beating engine - ironic at that.
Now GM is remaking it's Opels into Saturns where they used to sell rebaged Opels instead as Saabs and Cadillacs.
Reason why Saturn sales are gaining is they have new product. It's the question when 3-4 years down the road how well Saturn is surviving and whether GM loses focus on keeping them competitive again. What is really the problem that no one likes to mention is the Aura and soon to be coming Astra will be losing money no matter how many they sell. They will need to in order to create demand and get some market share. Unfortunatly that's the age old antitrust violation called dumping (another thing GM was good at claiming it's competition did - ironic at that!)
SherbornSean 11:49AM (9/07/2007)
I was surprised by the NY Times blog. The storyline was that Saturn was set up to be a separate carmaker, but after years of unprofitability, GM decided to make changes.
Rather than kill Saturn, GM decided to bring it into the fold so that Saturn would have access to GM's global platforms. Now, Saturn has world class cars -- the Astra, Aura, Outlook and new Vue.
What did NYT want - for Saturn to continue selling substandard plastic subcompacts forever?
Reply
St.J 12:54PM (9/07/2007)
The Chevrolet and Vauxhall Chevette and the Izusu Gemini were all Opel Kadett variations.
Reply
Tim 12:04PM (9/07/2007)
GM doesn't answer the question on when the unit will turn to profitability. Also Sales haven't changed much year over year despite increased number of offerings. Saturn should go back to its roots and offer ultra-efficient gasoline engines in cars that are fun to drive. Maybe borrow the diesels from Honda, keep the hybrids. Ask anyone with a VUE with the Honda 3.5L V6. Very efficient gasoline engine.
Reply
wettlaufer 12:56PM (9/07/2007)
Saturn sales rose 12.3% YoY on a selling-day adjusted basis through August. That's much more than "haven't changed much," especially given the current state of industry sales.
geo.stewart 12:04PM (9/07/2007)
a well fashioned response.
and yes, Saturn is a shining example of how Ford needs to handle Mercury.
Reply
alexer 10:58PM (9/07/2007)
exactly!!!!!! ford have to learn and do the same thing!!! if not mercury is dead!!!
BCM 12:05PM (9/07/2007)
Saturn cars were distinguished by space-frame construction and plastic body panels. They started down the tubes as they moved away from that. Now nothing distinguishes Saturns, and GM has taken the remaining brand equity and slapped it on totally extraneous cars. Why not just call an Opel an Opel? They're not bad cars, but the NYT has a glimmer of a point. It's like announcing the next Corvette will be steel-bodied and based on an Italian chassis.
Reply
geo.stewart 3:58PM (9/07/2007)
BECAUSE the general public doesnt know the name Opel. they do know Saturn AND they have a positive image of the dealer experience. GM wisely capitalized on that by offering product worthy of the dealer experience.
JMa 12:05PM (9/07/2007)
Never liked GM, but you have to give them credit when credit is due, and they have done a great job with Saturn in the last 12 month
Reply
TBlueMax 12:08PM (9/07/2007)
I have very fond memories of Saturn arriving in 1990 selling 1991 model year cars. I gave them a year to work the bugs out and purchased an SC in 1992. Later trading it in after 3 years with 60,000 miles on the odometer for a 1995 SC2. I kept the 1995 for 10 years and 187,000+ miles before selling it to another Saturn enthusiast.
I liked Saturn as a brand from a conceptual standpoint with GM and the UAW working together, cooperatively, to design and build good, small, fuel efficient cars that were distinctive. Heck, I even liked them from a practical standpoint - they were easy to work on and "what you saw" is "what you got." Certainly there were "better" cars on the market at that time, but if you were okay with large panel gaps in exchange for dent resistant polymer bodyside panels and a little more NVH (than a comparable Honda) in exchange for the pride in buying a car built in SpringHill, TN - this was a great car.
As the story goes, the company was starved for product and sales never reached expectations but a loyal owner-base developed from outstanding customer satisfaction and a genuine desire to be a part of a new type of automotive experience. Many of these original loyal owners identified Saturn as the "Different Kind of Car Company" it was designed to be - incorporating some of Saturn's unique hallmarks (i.e. polymer bodyside panels, UAW cooperative, built in one manufacturing plant in TN) - as part of the brand's identity. To this day, even with a nearly fully refreshed product line of good/great cars and crossovers, I can still hear some of the original Saturn owners bemoaning the loss of some of the things that made Saturn distinctive from other vehicles of the day.
That's alright for me however... I know exactly where they're coming from and although there are a few things I miss about the old company, they've managed to keep their focus on the customer experience while providing a line of compelling products. I understand why GM has had to transform Saturn into the company it is today and for what I miss from the old days, I feel Saturn's best days are before them.
Max
Reply
Henry 12:15PM (9/07/2007)
Saturn of fire with Car of the Year!.....that is funny!...ROTFLMAO!
Here are more cars that were "Car of the Year"
Renault Alliance
Chevrolet Vega
Chevrolet Citation
Chevrolet Monza
Winning awards does not guarantee sales and the Aura is proving it.
While it is a hell of an improvement over the L series and I applaude the overall direction that Saturn is taking, there is still some fine tuning that is required maintain the character of Saturn.
Also, the Astra appears to be priced too high to be truly competitive in it's segment.
Reply
tikirob 12:16PM (9/07/2007)
I have to agree that NYT just has it out for GM. For the first time Saturn (Vue) has a car on my shortlist, they are doing something right.
Rob
http://www.movie-cat.com
Reply
tikirob 12:17PM (9/07/2007)
I have to agree that NYT just has it out for GM. For the first time Saturn (Vue) has a car on my shortlist, they are doing something right.
Rob
http://www.movie-cat.com
Reply
EM 12:17PM (9/07/2007)
The NYT is really full of garbage. You have to remember that this was the same paper that publishes Tom Friedman's idiotic rants about how GM is destroying the world. He blames GM for creating the Suburban, and making gas as addictive as crack. Right, cause other cars don't use gas. For most people wether the car gets 30+ mpg or 5, you still need gas.
He is also the guy that said that McDonald's was an ecoterrorist (in so many words) because the put Hummer H2 toys in the kids meals. His thought process was that kids would obviously be influenced to purchase gas guzzling SUV's and therefor destroy the environment for future generations. Also, by nature of being McD's customers, subsequently contributing to the fattening of America. Again, because McD's happy meals toys have that much power over childrens minds, and McD's is the only place that makes you fat?
He is also quoted as saying "Here's a rule of thumb: The more Hummers we have on the road in America, the more military Humvees we will need in the Middle East." Which really boggles the mind how that works. His reasoning is that using more gas, therefore our oil dependency will keep us fighting in Iraq, and this of course, is all GM's fault. It has nothing to do with the instability in that region, the choices that our President and government make, or the fact that the war was started on the basis of very different things. Not it is all GM's fault for making a desirable vehicle (to sum).
Say nothing of the fact that the HUMVEE in Iraq saves our soldiers lives and helps protect them from RPG's and road side bombs. GM and AM General must have accidentally engineered them to do that.
Considering the numbers from last month:
Acura –10%
Dodge –8.0%
Ford –16.1%
HUMMER –15.
Jaguar –20.2%
Mercury –20.2%
Subaru –7.5%
Volkswagen –7.5%
All did worse than Saturn's slide of just over 4%. Then consider that 4 of those companies (or sub companies) sold less cars total than Saturn. Maybe Honda should kill Acura?
I have a hard time understanding how Friedman considers himself a marketer or economist as a Foreign Affairs writer. the man went to Oxford, has degrees in Middle Eastern studies, and still turns out laughable statements like the above mentioned. My college econ teach actaully could construct a salient point about killing off a car brand, backed up with lotgic and reasoning, NYT journalists are allowed to write things based off opinions and expect GM to think they are right.
Now he has a new friend over at the Gray Lady, or so it appears. The NYT is starting to become irrelevant, just like Car and Driver. Jerry Garrett wants GM to kill off the brand that has the Aura, probably one of GM's most praised cars in the past five years? The car that has dethroned many of its foreign competitors (at magazines with alleged foreign bias)?
What's next, Garret wants GM to kill Buick off after they have spent so much time retooling and thinking the brand and given it marked improvements, again beating out some foreign competition. Maybe Ford should ax the Fusion and the Mustang?
Cutting off the head to save the body doesn't make much sense.
Reply